[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070509151831.f5956b66.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 15:18:31 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
suparna@...ibm.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: aio is unlikely
On Wed, 09 May 2007 18:06:58 -0400
Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> wrote:
> > -#define in_aio() !is_sync_wait(current->io_wait)
> > +#define in_aio() (unlikely(!is_sync_wait(current->io_wait)))
>
> Please revert. Workload-dependent "likelihood" should not cause
> programmers to add such markers.
>
> This is a common misunderstanding about unlikely() and likely(). The
> branch prediction used for each assumes 99% unlikely or 99% likely,
> which is not true at all for workload-dependent code.
>
> Even if only 1% of Linux users use AIO, for that 1%, the 'unlikely'
> marker causes repeated branch mispredictions.
>
> likely() and unlikely() should be used for cases where code is
> likely/unlikely for EVERYBODY.
a) disagree with the above
b) if in_aio() ever returns true we do
printk(KERN_ERR "%s(%s:%d) called in async context!\n",
__FUNCTION__, __FILE__, __LINE__);
so I sure hope it's unlikely for all workloads.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists